SCIFI's best picture...when?

[Kegg]

People care because it's about legitimization, and the ghettoized stigma traditionally associated with sci-fi geeks. That may not exist or may not be relevant anymore, but since no sci-fi film has won best picture they can cast it as an extension of that condescending attitude.

Then you're up to at least nine nominated films. The distinction between sci-fi and fantasy is artificial and not at all meaningful; for example, there's no way in which Star Wars is more extrapolative, plausible or respectful of science than Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

Then surely it'd make sense to dub them both fantasy rather than both sci-fi? Star Wars is considered sci-fi because it at least has a ton of imaginary technology, aliens and whatnot, which is superficial but something the first Indiana film lacked.

I'm sure the distinction means as much to Hollywood as it does to Dennis, of course - that the distinction didn't mean much to Lucas and Spielberg can be evidenced by the fourth Indy film; where there's just as happy using aliens as they were using religious artefacts - the same attitude that 'futurizes' the sword, already an archaic weapon.

 

[The Comedian]

Nah, I don't believe a true Science Fiction film will ever win Best Picture.

Return Of The King already has.

Where's the "sci" in that movie?

 

[MyCylon]

"2001 - A Space Odyssey" is the first one that I had to think of. I think it's criminal it didn't score best picture, let alone it not even being nominated in the first place. IMHO it's a cinema masterpiece any way you look at it.

 

[Kelso]

I actually think The Lion in Winter should've won Best Picture for 1968 (I say this not having seen Oliver!). But 2001 is probably the best candidate from those mentioned in this thread for a BP nomination. The lack of a powerful acting performance probably held it back... since it was nominated for Best Director and Screenplay (among other things).

 

[cardinal biggles]

I actually think "The Lion in Winter" should've won Best Picture for 1968 (I say this not having seen "Oliver!"). But "2001" is probably the best candidate from those mentioned in this thread for a BP nomination. The lack of a powerful acting performance probably held it back... since it was nominated for Best Director and Screenplay (among other things).

Oliver! was good, but as I said upthread, it was Yet Another Goddamned Musical. I agree with you on The Lion in Winter being a far better picture. 2001 blows both of them away, both in terms of story as well as in terms of impact on the film industry.

I think you nailed it, though about the (deliberate, on Kubrick's part) lack of a powerful acting performance in 2001 hobbling its chances. I don't know what the exact percentage is, but the largest voting bloc in the Academy is the actors. They're going to be more likely to vote in a Best Picture that has powerful, tour-de-force performances, than something long, artsy, laden with VFX, where the human characters (again, deliberately) get out-acted by a voice eminating from a glowing red eye on the wall.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I actually think "The Lion in Winter" should've won Best Picture for 1968 (I say this not having seen "Oliver!"). But "2001" is probably the best candidate from those mentioned in this thread for a BP nomination. The lack of a powerful acting performance probably held it back... since it was nominated for Best Director and Screenplay (among other things).

Oliver! was good, but as I said upthread, it was Yet Another Goddamned Musical. I agree with you on The Lion in Winter being a far better picture. 2001 blows both of them away, both in terms of story as well as in terms of impact on the film industry.

I think you nailed it, though about the (deliberate, on Kubrick's part) lack of a powerful acting performance in 2001 hobbling its chances. I don't know what the exact percentage is, but the largest voting bloc in the Academy is the actors. They're going to be more likely to vote in a Best Picture that has powerful, tour-de-force performances, than something long, artsy, laden with VFX, where the human characters (again, deliberately) get out-acted by a voice eminating from a glowing red eye on the wall.

the thing is? I think THE LION IN WINTER is a better movie, over all, than 2001. I think 2001 took too many liberties with the book, and was, as said, saddled with less than memorable acting.

I'm going with STAR WARS. Annie Hall won, the other movies nominated, including the Goodbye Girl, were just not there.

So, i am sticking with stars wars as the one that should have won, that was actually nominated.

Empire Strikes Back? That's a whole other story! It should have been nominated!!!

Rob

 

[Harvey]

2001: A Space Odyssey didn't really take liberties with the book, since the book and screenplay were written simultaneously, loosely based upon Arthur C. Clarke's earlier short story, "The Sentinel."

As far as Inglourious Basterds is concerned, though I love that movie, I'd quibble over calling it science fiction. The very end of the film diverges towards a different path than history, but it isn't at all concerned with exploring the consequences of the alternate history it creates. Is Gladiator an alternate history, too, for killing Commodus in the Colosseum?

 

[Admiral Shran]

Are we arguing that because the whole SF/Fantasy combined genre has had ten nominations that it has been well represented at the Oscars ? Eighty two years and ten nominations is a disgrace.

Nine nominations actually. Sci-fi = A Clockwork Orange, Star Wars, E.T., Avatar, and District 9. Fantasy = Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King.

But I completely agree; it is a disgrace.

As far as Inglourious Basterds is concerned, though I love that movie, I'd quibble over calling it science fiction. The very end of the film diverges towards a different path than history, but it isn't at all concerned with exploring the consequences of the alternate history it creates. Is Gladiator an alternate history, too, for killing Commodus in the Colosseum?

I doubt it, otherwise any film based on actual historical events that's not 100% historically accurate (all of them) would have to be considered as alternate history.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I had a massive brain fart on this...yes 2001 is a better film than LION IN THE WINTER, and Oliver. I somehow substituted my memories of 2010 for 2001 and while bowling tonight, I started wondering about Roy Shrieder and then I realized 2010 was after Jaws which was after 2001...

2001 should have been nominated...and won.

Rob

 

[cardinal biggles]

Are we arguing that because the whole SF/Fantasy combined genre has had ten nominations that it has been well represented at the Oscars ? Eighty two years and ten nominations is a disgrace.

Nine nominations actually. Sci-fi = A Clockwork Orange, Star Wars, E.T., Avatar, and District 9. Fantasy = Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King.

But I completely agree; it is a disgrace.

Weren't we up to ten, and including The Exorcist in there as well?

 

[Kelso]

It sounds like they need to make better scifi movies.

Perhaps the disgrace is that scifi movies typically aren't Best Picture caliber films.

 

[RobertScorpio]

It sounds like they need to make better scifi movies.

Perhaps the disgrace is that scifi movies typically aren't Best Picture caliber films.

Yeah, perhaps the dirth of bad scifi films is keeping the rest of them down. Horror Movies/Scifi movies ratio of good movies to bad movies is probably, at best, 1/15

 

[AvBaur]

It sounds like they need to make better scifi movies.

Perhaps the disgrace is that scifi movies typically aren't Best Picture caliber films.

When movies like Shakespeare in Love, A Beautiful Mind, Crash, and Slumdog Millionaire are considered good enough to win Best Picture, then certainly 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Star Wars, Blade Runner, Alien, Aliens, The Matrix, and Children of Men (or at least some of them) should be, too.

 

[Kegg]

Is Gladiator an alternate history, too, for killing Commodus in the Colosseum?

Good point. Really, Inglourious Basterds is less of an alternate history and more carrying Hollywood's tendency to mythmake out of history to its natural conclusion. Hollywood might avoid the Big Lies, like killing Hitler as he was, but it'll insert a thousand smaller ones in their conceptual rewrites, and in the end, what's the difference? Is 300 a more faithful film because it follows the story beats of the true event more or less if you squint real hard?

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Is Gladiator an alternate history, too, for killing Commodus in the Colosseum?

Good point. Really, Inglourious Basterds is less of an alternate history and more carrying Hollywood's tendency to mythmake out of history to its natural conclusion. Hollywood might avoid the Big Lies, like killing Hitler as he was, but it'll insert a thousand smaller ones in their conceptual rewrites, and in the end, what's the difference? Is 300 a more faithful film because it follows the story beats of the true event more or less if you squint real hard?

U-571 comes to mind here as well.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Is Gladiator an alternate history, too, for killing Commodus in the Colosseum?

Good point. Really, Inglourious Basterds is less of an alternate history and more carrying Hollywood's tendency to mythmake out of history to its natural conclusion. Hollywood might avoid the Big Lies, like killing Hitler as he was, but it'll insert a thousand smaller ones in their conceptual rewrites, and in the end, what's the difference? Is 300 a more faithful film because it follows the story beats of the true event more or less if you squint real hard?

U-571 comes to mind here as well.

True. But I think most people, not all, but most people would not consider Gladiator or Bastards SCIFI movies. I mean, what about JFK with it's invented character? Does that make JFK a scifi movie? no...and I think most people can seperate movies like Bastards/U571/JFK from StarWars/ET/Star Trek.

But as this discussion continues on I really think that there should be three subsets that each get an oscar winner. BEST COMEDY...BEST SCIFI/FANTASY/HORROR...BEST ANIMATED

They would be eligable for the over all Best picture, but it would raise the bar on any scifi movie that was nominated for best picture, but guarentee that at least there would be a 'best scifi' movie winner, since its clear that even scifi movies that are worthy of best picture (empire strikes back, for example) don't even get nominated, and even if they do, only 1 (LOTR) has been able to actually win.

Oh, and yes, I would lump SCIFI/FANTASy/HORROR all in the same category.

Rob

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It sounds like they need to make better scifi movies.

Perhaps the disgrace is that scifi movies typically aren't Best Picture caliber films.

When movies like Shakespeare in Love, A Beautiful Mind, Crash, and Slumdog Millionaire are considered good enough to win Best Picture, then certainly 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Star Wars, Blade Runner, Alien, Aliens, The Matrix, and Children of Men (or at least some of them) should be, too.

Uh...no. Maybe one or two of those.

Kelso is right.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Science fiction is described as - "a genre of fiction which uses, within the context of the story, imaginary elements that are largely possible within scientificially established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

Fantasy is described as - "a genre of fiction that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting. Fantasy is generally distinguished from science fiction by the expectation that it steers clear of scientific themes.

"Described as" by someone (most likely a wikipedia editor) - there is no generally, much less universally, recognized distinction of that sort.

It can be said with more certainty that science fiction is a subgenre of fantasy - all fantasy may not be considered science fiction, but all science fiction is fantasy.

 

[Kegg]

It can be said with more certainty that science fiction is a subgenre of fantasy - all fantasy may not be considered science fiction, but all science fiction is fantasy.

That's pretty much exactly what I'd say. I also know sci-fi when I see it, which is a lousy definition but at least essentially my take (Avatar is sci-fi - ergo fantasy also; Lord of the Rings is fantasy - but not sci-fi.)

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Nope, science fiction isn't fantasy. It's speculative fiction. Just like fantasy, horror, and maybe alternate history.